Paul wrote:
>Some background can be helpful here. Proto-scientific peoples, such as the
>Hebrews were, organize biological kinds into 3-5 basic categories: FISH,
BIRD,
>SNAKE and later WUG (worm + bug) and MAMMAL. The OT has FISH, BIRD SNAKE and
>MAMMAL, but not WUG (Gen 1:26, I kg 4:23; Ezek 38:20). The BIRD category is
>represented by the Hebrew word 'op, which Dick rightly understands as "flying
>creature", thus bats are part of that category (Lev 11:19).
>But, although flying insects could conceivably have been placed in the same
>category with birds, the term 'op cannot be applied to insects which do _not_
>fly and hence 'op cannot be the same basic word as "insect." Further even if
>flying insects were placed in the category of 'op, birds cannot be excluded.
Birds can be excluded in Gen. 1:20 because it is out of order. Also "great
whales" would be out of order, but "large sea creatures" would fit. So
interpret
the way that works. What is your problem?
I just don't think an early false prophet would have had the chutzpah to
invent an order of creation off the top of his head. IF Scripture is inspired
by
the Holy Spirit, and is "God-breathed" as Paul (the other Paul) said, then
let's
presume that God correctly remembered the order of creation and saw to
it that an early Hebrew prophet set it down in the correct order. If certain
Hebrew words have various meanings, sneak a peek at the fossil record and
interpret accordingly.
On the other hand, if you wish to presume that Genesis is uninspired, then if
it is not from God, it is of the devil. So if you are right we need to find a
religion
that has God as the source and jettison Christianity as demonic infiltrated.
What is your recommended alternative - The Church of Scientology?
>Nor can I see any curiosity or redundancy in the three mentions of "bird" in
>Gen 1:20-22. The author also mentions water creatures three times in these
>same verses without it being curious or redundant; and he mentions the
>firmament three times in vv. 6-8. This is simply the writer's style.
Because if "bird" is the word it doesn't make sense. It's like building a
house
and saying: Dig a hole, frame the windows, pour the footers, frame the
windows,
lay the cement blocks, frame the windows, frame the house, frame the windows.
What makes you think the Hebrews are so stupid?
Here is what I suggest be done with Gen. 1:20-21.
Genesis 1:20-21: “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the
moving
creature that hath life [fish], and fowl [flying insects] that may fly above
the earth in
the open firmament of heaven [sky]. And God created great whales [large sea
creatures], and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought
forth
abundantly after their kind [amphibians and reptiles], and every winged fowl
[birds]
after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”
>The fact that bats are classed as birds in Lev 11:19 and probably whales as
>fish in Gen 1:21 should alert us not to be seeking modern science in the
>Pentateuch.
Okay, forget modern science, try common sense. Normally, whales don't swim
in the Red Sea, or the Persian Gulf, or the Mediterranean Sea - the only
bodies
of water the Hebrews could have seen. Just as they could not have named
penguins or kangaroos, the author of Genesis 1 could not have intended the
animals we call "whales" today. Therefore "sea creatures" is appropriate.
>There is nothing unbiblical about God accomodating himself to simple people.
>In Gen 1, he simply becomes "all things to all men" -- in this case to simple
>ancient Near Eastern peoples.
There is a problem if God can't remember the order of creation.
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."
--=====================_41783474==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Paul wrote:
>Some background can be helpful here. Proto-scientific peoples,
such as the
>Hebrews were, organize biological kinds into 3-5 basic categories:
FISH, BIRD,
>SNAKE and later WUG (worm + bug) and MAMMAL. The OT has FISH,
BIRD SNAKE and
>MAMMAL, but not WUG (Gen 1:26, I kg 4:23; Ezek 38:20). The BIRD
category is
>represented by the Hebrew word 'op, which Dick rightly understands as
"flying
>creature", thus bats are part of that category (Lev
11:19).
>But, although flying insects could conceivably have been placed in
the same
>category with birds, the term 'op cannot be applied to insects which
do _not_
>fly and hence 'op cannot be the same basic word as
"insect." Further even if
>flying insects were placed in the category of 'op, birds cannot be
excluded.
Birds can be excluded in Gen. 1:20 because it is out of order. Also
"great
whales" would be out of order, but "large sea creatures"
would fit. So interpret
the way that works. What is your problem?
I just don't think an early false prophet would have had the
chutzpah to
invent an order of creation off the top of his head. IF Scripture
is inspired by
the Holy Spirit, and is "God-breathed" as Paul (the other Paul)
said, then let's
presume that God correctly remembered the order of creation and saw
to
it that an early Hebrew prophet set it down in the correct order.
If certain
Hebrew words have various meanings, sneak a peek at the fossil record
and
interpret accordingly.
On the other hand, if you wish to presume that Genesis is uninspired,
then if
it is not from God, it is of the devil. So if you are right we need
to find a religion
that has God as the source and jettison Christianity as demonic
infiltrated.
What is your recommended alternative - The Church of Scientology?
>Nor can I see any curiosity or redundancy in the three mentions of
"bird" in
>Gen 1:20-22. The author also mentions water creatures three
times in these
>same verses without it being curious or redundant; and he mentions
the
>firmament three times in vv. 6-8. This is simply the writer's
style.
Because if "bird" is the word it doesn't make sense. It's
like building a house
and saying: Dig a hole, frame the windows, pour the footers, frame the
windows,
lay the cement blocks, frame the windows, frame the house, frame the
windows.
What makes you think the Hebrews are so stupid?
Here is what I suggest be done with Gen. 1:20-21.
Genesis 1:20-21: “And God said, Let the waters bring forth
abundantly the moving
creature that hath life [fish], and fowl [flying insects] that may fly
above the earth in
the open firmament of heaven [sky]. And God created great whales
[large sea
creatures], and every living creature that moveth, which the waters
brought forth
abundantly after their kind [amphibians and reptiles], and every winged
fowl [birds]
after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”
>The fact that bats are classed as birds in Lev 11:19 and probably
whales as
>fish in Gen 1:21 should alert us not to be seeking modern science in
the
>Pentateuch.
Okay, forget modern science, try common sense. Normally, whales
don't swim
in the Red Sea, or the Persian Gulf, or the Mediterranean Sea - the only
bodies
of water the Hebrews could have seen. Just as they could not have
named
penguins or kangaroos, the author of Genesis 1 could not have intended
the
animals we call "whales" today. Therefore "sea
creatures" is appropriate.
>There is nothing unbiblical about God accomodating himself to simple
people.
>In Gen 1, he simply becomes "all things to all men" -- in
this case to simple
>ancient Near Eastern peoples.
There is a problem if God can't remember the order of creation.
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution -
www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."
--=====================_41783474==_.ALT--